sessions, voting, and the next flock

[Toshio Kuratomi]

I just ran through a trial of voting on the flock 2013 sessions.  Some
general thoughts about that:

* I really want to know the speaker names.
  - There's a few talks that are very similar.  Judging which one I want to
    go to largely depends on who was giving it.

* As I was voting, I felt that I didn't personally want to go to some of the
  hackfests (already overcommitted on the hackfests that I need to go to)
  but I also felt like that shouldn't stop that hackfest from being held.
  If three people were already planning on attending flock and were excited
  to hold a Fedora on Alpha hackfest with each other I don't think we'd do
  anything (or could ;-) to stop them.
  - Maybe in the future we could separate the hackfests into a separate
    section.  Hackfests where the organizer would be attending flock would
    have their hackfests accepted to the schedule.  Hackfests where the
    hackfest organizer needed sponsorship money to attend could be vetted to
    determine whether we would fund them or not.

* Many of the similar sessions are talks about how we might want to change
  Fedora.  I don't think the talk format is going to serve us well here as
  we're going to have different people giving competing proposals in
  different time slots throughout the conference with potentially disjoint
  attendees.  It seems like it would be better to merge these types of
  future-planning into a one-day "hackfest" session.  People could each be
  given 15-30 minutes to present a proposal for the future of Fedora
  (hopefully with the proposal online in advance so that people could
  consolidate if their proposal had significant overlap with someone
  else's).  At the end of the presentations, the attendees could try and
  come to consensus on some of the changes to make a single proposal or at
  least, narrow the field a bit.  This could then be presented to the
  conference as a whole (and mailing lists after the conference) as
  a proposal or starting point for discussion about the future.

-Toshio

[Jaroslav Reznik]

----- Original Message -----
>  I just ran through a trial of voting on the flock 2013 sessions. 
> Some
>  general thoughts about that:
>  
>  * I really want to know the speaker names.
>    - There's a few talks that are very similar.  Judging which one I want to
>      go to largely depends on who was giving it. 
And it will fix the coordination on similar talks. But I understand it would
be unfair to change the rules while the game is on.

>  
>  * As I was voting, I felt that I didn't personally want to go to some of the
>    hackfests (already overcommitted on the hackfests that I need to go to)
>    but I also felt like that shouldn't stop that hackfest from being held.
>    If three people were already planning on attending flock and were excited
>    to hold a Fedora on Alpha hackfest with each other I don't think we'd do
>    anything (or could ;-) to stop them.
>    - Maybe in the future we could separate the hackfests into a separate
>      section.  Hackfests where the organizer would be attending flock would
>      have their hackfests accepted to the schedule.  Hackfests where the
>      hackfest organizer needed sponsorship money to attend could be vetted to
>      determine whether we would fund them or not. 
Agreed, but space has to be considered too. Maybe one room with no schedule
could help to meet for the rest of hackfest with not as many votes to be
scheduled.

>  * Many of the similar sessions are talks about how we might want to
> change
>    Fedora.  I don't think the talk format is going to serve us well here as
>    we're going to have different people giving competing proposals in
>    different time slots throughout the conference with potentially disjoint
>    attendees.  It seems like it would be better to merge these types of
>    future-planning into a one-day "hackfest" session.  People could each be
>    given 15-30 minutes to present a proposal for the future of Fedora
>    (hopefully with the proposal online in advance so that people could
>    consolidate if their proposal had significant overlap with someone
>    else's).  At the end of the presentations, the attendees could try and
>    come to consensus on some of the changes to make a single proposal or at
>    least, narrow the field a bit.  This could then be presented to the
>    conference as a whole (and mailing lists after the conference) as
>    a proposal or starting point for discussion about the future. 
That's why I like the idea of recap every morning (or even more often?) to
get in sync.

Jaroslav

>  -Toshio
>  
>  _______________________________________________
>  flock-planning mailing list
>  flock-planning(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/flock-planning
>

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 12:49:23 -0400 (EDT)
Jaroslav Reznik <jreznik(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

>  > * As I was voting, I felt that I didn't personally want to
> go to
>  > some of the hackfests (already overcommitted on the hackfests that
>  > I need to go to) but I also felt like that shouldn't stop that
>  > hackfest from being held. If three people were already planning on
>  > attending flock and were excited to hold a Fedora on Alpha hackfest
>  > with each other I don't think we'd do anything (or could ;-) to
>  > stop them.
>  >   - Maybe in the future we could separate the hackfests into a
>  > separate section.  Hackfests where the organizer would be attending
>  > flock would have their hackfests accepted to the schedule.
>  > Hackfests where the hackfest organizer needed sponsorship money to
>  > attend could be vetted to determine whether we would fund them or
>  > not.
>  
>  Agreed, but space has to be considered too. Maybe one room with no
>  schedule could help to meet for the rest of hackfest with not as many
>  votes to be scheduled. 
I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to try and allocate 2 rooms: 

a) quiet hacking (low voices/discussion, but power and a place to sit
down) People could use this to work on talks last minute or write up
plans or the like without loud discussions derailing them or the like. 

b) community room. people could gather in small groups and talk here
and discuss/hash out things or work on writeups or small hackfests that
only have a few people interested. If you didn't want to go to any of
the talks/hackfests going on then, you could wander into the community
room and listen in on all the small groups and join in if you wanted.

I guess thats a bit of just more formalizing the 'hallway track'. 

(The community room could perhaps just be a big room after keynotes,
etc). 

Just a thought... 

kevin

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)scrye.com&gt; wrote:
>  I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to try and allocate 2 rooms:
>
>  a) quiet hacking (low voices/discussion, but power and a place to sit
>  down) People could use this to work on talks last minute or write up
>  plans or the like without loud discussions derailing them or the like.
>
>  b) community room. people could gather in small groups and talk here
>  and discuss/hash out things or work on writeups or small hackfests that
>  only have a few people interested. If you didn't want to go to any of
>  the talks/hackfests going on then, you could wander into the community
>  room and listen in on all the small groups and join in if you wanted.
>
>  I guess thats a bit of just more formalizing the 'hallway track'.
>
>  (The community room could perhaps just be a big room after keynotes,
>  etc).
>  
I kinda like this..  otoh, I think it might end up competing with the
hallway track rather than supplementing it.  The nice thing about the
hallway track is that  for an attendee you don't really plan for it...
you just find yourself more engrossed with the discussion you overhear
as you're walking between talks than with the talk you were originally
planning on going to.

Possible enhancements:

* I think even better is to have discussion-friendly hallways.  Wide.
Friendly looking.  Chairs.  Power.  This depends on the venue, though,
so we probably won't have control over this.
* Attractions in the hallway-track room: snacks.  water.  paper, pens,
whiteboards.

-Toshio

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 12:49:23PM -0400, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>  >   - Maybe in the future we could separate the hackfests into a
> separate
>  >     section.  Hackfests where the organizer would be attending flock would
>  >     have their hackfests accepted to the schedule.  Hackfests where the
>  >     hackfest organizer needed sponsorship money to attend could be vetted to
>  >     determine whether we would fund them or not.
>  
>  Agreed, but space has to be considered too. Maybe one room with no schedule
>  could help to meet for the rest of hackfest with not as many votes to be
>  scheduled.
>   
Space is important but... with hackfests, I don't think having a lot of
space is as important as having the right sort of space.

The hackfest I thought was most productive was when we rented The State Club
at NCSU.  For that, we had a single room but it was a large room with
movable tables.  That allowed us to break up into the appropriate groups as
we needed to and it let us run a few yards to tap someone on the shoulder
too.  We haven't managed to replicate that since but I'm still hoping ;-)

>  > * Many of the similar sessions are talks about how we might want
> to change
>  >   Fedora.  I don't think the talk format is going to serve us well here as
>  >   we're going to have different people giving competing proposals in
>  >   different time slots throughout the conference with potentially disjoint
>  >   attendees.  It seems like it would be better to merge these types of
>  >   future-planning into a one-day "hackfest" session.  People could each
> be
>  >   given 15-30 minutes to present a proposal for the future of Fedora
>  >   (hopefully with the proposal online in advance so that people could
>  >   consolidate if their proposal had significant overlap with someone
>  >   else's).  At the end of the presentations, the attendees could try and
>  >   come to consensus on some of the changes to make a single proposal or at
>  >   least, narrow the field a bit.  This could then be presented to the
>  >   conference as a whole (and mailing lists after the conference) as
>  >   a proposal or starting point for discussion about the future.
>  
>  That's why I like the idea of recap every morning (or even more often?) to
>  get in sync.
>  
<nod>  I've been reading the recap thread.  although I kinda like the
idea
of a recap, I don't think we've set up this conference to do a good recap at
the very end: See what I wrote here about a Day N wrap up:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Toshio/I_dream_of_conference#Purely_d...

That's something we could change if we say next time that the end of the
conference is more important than the beginning :-).

I don't really like a recap every day either as we're more interested in the
proposals that come out at the end and what work remains to be done than
knowing what ideas are being discussed in the middle of the conference.

There's some other reasons I like the outline of my idea above better than
a recap at the end... but I think those comments will fit in better in the
context of spot's email.  I'll reply there.

-Toshio

[Jaroslav Reznik]

----- Original Message -----
>  > That's why I like the idea of recap every morning (or even
> more often?) to
>  > get in sync.
>  >
>  <nod>  I've been reading the recap thread.  although I kinda like the idea
>  of a recap, I don't think we've set up this conference to do a good recap at
>  the very end: See what I wrote here about a Day N wrap up:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Toshio/I_dream_of_conference#Purely_d...
>  
>  That's something we could change if we say next time that the end of the
>  conference is more important than the beginning :-).
>  
>  I don't really like a recap every day either as we're more interested in the
>  proposals that come out at the end and what work remains to be done than
>  knowing what ideas are being discussed in the middle of the conference.
>  
>  There's some other reasons I like the outline of my idea above better than
>  a recap at the end... but I think those comments will fit in better in the
>  context of spot's email.  I'll reply there. 
I agree and I'd like to see more discussion at Flock about Flock. As I said
several times before - it's if we want more conference like format as Flock 
is planned now, or more developers/collaboration hackfest like event (to do 
things). From my experience these two do not blend very well but let's try 
it, we will see. I'm definitely looking forward for Flock!

Jaroslav

>  
>  -Toshio
>  
>  
>  _______________________________________________
>  flock-planning mailing list
>  flock-planning(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/flock-planning
>

[Tom Callaway]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 06/03/2013 12:40 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>  * I really want to know the speaker names. - There's a few talks
>  that are very similar.  Judging which one I want to go to largely
>  depends on who was giving it. 
I think it makes sense to combine any similar talks into one talk for
the final schedule. We would of course reach out to both submitters in
this case and ensure they are okay with a joint presentation.

If you see talks that you feel are similar enough for this, please
call them out explicitly. What is obvious to you may not be obvious to
the scheduling committee. :)

>  * As I was voting, I felt that I didn't personally want to go to
>  some of the hackfests (already overcommitted on the hackfests that
>  I need to go to) but I also felt like that shouldn't stop that
>  hackfest from being held. If three people were already planning on
>  attending flock and were excited to hold a Fedora on Alpha hackfest
>  with each other I don't think we'd do anything (or could ;-) to
>  stop them. 
I agree. We will do our best to accommodate as many submissions as
possible, and of course, the last day is currently planned as open
"hackfest", so anything that didn't land in the formal schedule could
happen then. (Alternately, we could schedule out that last day, but I
think people will prefer that open day).

>  - Maybe in the future we could separate the hackfests into a
>  separate section.  Hackfests where the organizer would be attending
>  flock would have their hackfests accepted to the schedule.
>  Hackfests where the hackfest organizer needed sponsorship money to
>  attend could be vetted to determine whether we would fund them or
>  not. 
It's not a bad idea.

>  * Many of the similar sessions are talks about how we might want to
>  change Fedora.  I don't think the talk format is going to serve us
>  well here as we're going to have different people giving competing
>  proposals in different time slots throughout the conference with
>  potentially disjoint attendees.  It seems like it would be better
>  to merge these types of future-planning into a one-day "hackfest"
>  session.  People could each be given 15-30 minutes to present a
>  proposal for the future of Fedora (hopefully with the proposal
>  online in advance so that people could consolidate if their
>  proposal had significant overlap with someone else's).  At the end
>  of the presentations, the attendees could try and come to consensus
>  on some of the changes to make a single proposal or at least,
>  narrow the field a bit.  This could then be presented to the 
>  conference as a whole (and mailing lists after the conference) as a
>  proposal or starting point for discussion about the future. 
Hmm. I was more thinking about having a specific track for these
items. Perhaps I am pessimistic in thinking that consensus across all
of these "change" ideas is likely to occur over the course of a single
day. I almost want FESCo/Board to listen to these ideas and try to
turn them into a plan for the future.

Thanks for the feedback!

~tom

==
Fedora Project
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlGsy6AACgkQPF6ZrZMFQmDyKgCfQB1gEVV9cUqOGXtA+CI88W8/
> HfsAoI2oy7jWdRwRO15ZqM/hMZzuNUyA
> =I3Zm
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 01:00:20PM -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
>  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  Hash: SHA1
>  
>  On 06/03/2013 12:40 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>  > * I really want to know the speaker names. - There's a few talks
>  > that are very similar.  Judging which one I want to go to largely
>  > depends on who was giving it.
>  
>  I think it makes sense to combine any similar talks into one talk for
>  the final schedule. We would of course reach out to both submitters in
>  this case and ensure they are okay with a joint presentation.
>  
>  If you see talks that you feel are similar enough for this, please
>  call them out explicitly. What is obvious to you may not be obvious to
>  the scheduling committee. :)
>   
<nod>  Cool.  I'll get you a list in the next couple days when I have
a chance to read through it again.

>  
>  > * Many of the similar sessions are talks about how we might want to
>  > change Fedora.  I don't think the talk format is going to serve us
>  > well here as we're going to have different people giving competing
>  > proposals in different time slots throughout the conference with
>  > potentially disjoint attendees.  It seems like it would be better
>  > to merge these types of future-planning into a one-day "hackfest"
>  > session.  People could each be given 15-30 minutes to present a
>  > proposal for the future of Fedora (hopefully with the proposal
>  > online in advance so that people could consolidate if their
>  > proposal had significant overlap with someone else's).  At the end
>  > of the presentations, the attendees could try and come to consensus
>  > on some of the changes to make a single proposal or at least,
>  > narrow the field a bit.  This could then be presented to the 
>  > conference as a whole (and mailing lists after the conference) as a
>  > proposal or starting point for discussion about the future.
>  
>  Hmm. I was more thinking about having a specific track for these
>  items. Perhaps I am pessimistic in thinking that consensus across all
>  of these "change" ideas is likely to occur over the course of a single
>  day. I almost want FESCo/Board to listen to these ideas and try to
>  turn them into a plan for the future.
>   
<nod>

I like the idea of Fedora decision makers listening to these ideas and then
working through them with the people who are proposing them to come up with
a proposal or two that try to encompass as many of the good ideas as they
can.

A track followed by a FESCo/Board hackfest might be the best way to put this
into the current format for flock.

In the future, instead of a track it might be nice to have a day devoted to
making and explaining proposals; discussion and hashing out of controversial
areas to still happen later in the conference.  The difference from a track
would be that a track is parallel to the rest of the conference.  Since so
many of us wear several hats, that makes it difficult to participate in the
whole discussion.  (Or alternately, to participate in the rest of the
conference).

Maybethis could be done FAD style:  who has proposals that need to be run by
a larger amount of the community?  What large portions of the community need
to be there to here those and work on them in the rest of the conference?
Can we get all of those people to the first day/one day before (depending
on how you think of it ;-) to work on these things together?

I had written up some thoughts on a purely-developer focused event and that
sort of Day 1 was one of the things I thought would be useful:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Toshio/I_dream_of_conference#Purely_d...

Just a warning that a lot of the ideas there shouldn't be taken as things to
do for this flock -- more ideas for things we could think about doing for
the next flock.

-Toshio